Music, Style & Culture

Trials Of A Timelord: Is The Doctor Who Movie Good News?

David Yates brings The Doctor to the big screen, starting from scratch.

They're actually doing it. They're (apparently) actually making a Doctor Who movie. Not just one, though, a series - a whole run - a franchise. This is going to be amazing. They can finally show the Time War! They can get back McGann. David Tennant is available, isn't he? Can't wait to see what Moffat will do with a film budget, and surely the big screen was made of Matt Smith's Doctor.

Oh, wait.

Yes, The Doctor is returning to the big screen, but like his previous two outings in the mid sixties, it's not going to be in the same canon as the long running TV series. And bluntly, it's a bit disappointing.

"Russell T. Davies and then Steven Moffat have done their own transformations," new man at the helm David Yates, better known for his work on the last four Harry Potter films explains. "We have to put that aside and start from scratch."

But why, David? Yes, OK, Doctor Who is a reasonably niche pursuit in the US - where films must make their money - but it's growing by the season. The main issue must be interference with what Steven Moffat is currently crafting on the small screen - a wonderfully intricate, often brilliant show that, even at its weakest moments, remains a cut above almost any other science fiction around.

And it's a good point; too many cooks may spoil the broth, and while it would be nice to imagine Moffat would have time to pen a few feature length adventures, the man has to sleep. Films that required intimate knowledge of the television series just wouldn't spin either. The fact remains, if the films are to be big, this is the way forward.

But on the other hand, it remains a massive let down. Yes, the concept of Doctor Who is formidable - possibly one of the greatest set ups around - but this won't be our Doctor. It's no surprise you don't find too many people obsessing over 1965's Doctor Who and the Daleks compared to the work of William Hartnell or Patrick Troughton - on a stand alone basis, without almost fifty years of rich history, it's hard to feel quite the same emotional tow. Even those who got onboard after the series' biggest reboot to date in 2005 will have to admit this isn't the same Doctor who left Rose Tyler stranded in another dimension, or even the same one who left our screens a couple of months back. He's not gone through the same experiences. He'll quite simply be a mad man in a box.

So, there's nothing worth getting excited about? Well, not really. Yates did do a good job with the tail end of the Potter franchise - he clearly knows how to make something quintessentially British work across the pond. With the right writers - writers who, crucially, have a love and understanding of the source material - this could still be an event worthy of attention. With the constraints of canon one, it's possible they could even do something amazing and new with it (though that would be a push with one of the most inventive series around). At the very least, it's going to cause a lot of arguments across internet forums.

And so it we'll begin. Who should be the big screen Doctor? What stories should they cover? Which will be the first Hollywood starlet to be linked as companion, and just how long is it until either Benedict Cumberbatch or Martin Freeman get linked with the job? If Yates doesn't know what he's letting himself in for, he soon will.